Totally agree with this, we shouldn't have been in a position to worry about 50/50 decisions after building up the lead. Bit of composure and tighter play could have seen us home.

But there is a big difference between an honest mistake and incompetence. I haven't replayed and won't be replaying the Buderus incident, as our game has gone and I've said my bit; but in ANY televised game, IF it is correct that a player in a VR call did get involved in the play after starting blatantly offside and the Video Ref missed it, then that's actually a huge error by the VR. If I were Cummings, I would think such incompetence was on the inexcusable side of slack.

I can't seem to find the thread asking where Leeds' goal line drop out was when Kearney was clearly tackled behind the line? Which is also clearly visible on video evidence. Or are we only picking up on ref errors that didn't go in your favour?

Funny that.

I missed the one where Royston was taken out in exactly the same vein to BJB by Brett Delaney, resulting in a totally different outcome.

The point made at the start of this thread is a perfectly valid one, it was an enormous thing to miss from the officials, especially with the facility of the VR being available for usage. I for one aren't saying it cost us the game blah blah, I don't think it did, but these kinds of things should not be missed.

Was the VR asked to look at it? No?
Think the point is that the VR was asked to look at the legality of the Leeds try, he totally failed to spot the infringement by Buderus. He could have taken as long as he liked to look at it to check he got it right. He took enough time to make up...er...see Walker's knock on so there should be no excuse for getting this one wrong too. So an error by the VR. Not a "real time mistake" by the ref.

Not half as funny as a pis=#FFFFFF[size=50.[/sizespoor troll attempt failing miserably due to inability to understand what the thread is actually about.

I didn't see it at the time, neither did the ref or VR, neither did it get mentioned by the Sky team. So until I see it for myself, or read an admittance of mistake by the RL, I will assume it is more bitter paranoia from an embarrassingly large minority.

It was a "real time mistake" though wasn't it. The VR is not allowed to look for something that he wasn't asked to look for. He can't just decide to have a gander at everything that's going on.

You clearly hear the ref say stuff like... "Just check the grounding for me Steve mate!", or "Just looking to see if Graham was onside please!". The VR can't take it upon himself to say, "The grounding was fine but whilst I was looking at the grounding I noticed this...". The VR can only look at what he has been asked to look at.

Ganson made a "real time mistake" and didn't spot Buderus, so didn't ask Silverwood to check. The fact that the VR might have spotted it is irrelevant. He wasn't asked to check it because of Ganson's "real time mistake". There was no error by the VR.

I don't want to get involved in the actual debate, but I just wanted to point out that what you have said her is complete and total b0llocks. It's something that's been made up by someone (be it a fan or a pundit) and is actually not true at all. The video ref can call anything he sees and look at anything he chooses up to the last play-the-ball. If he thinks he's seen something that the referee hasn't mentioned, he is well within his authority to check it.

Incidentally, my source on this is Stuart Cummings himself.

Was there an incident between 2 teams somewhere in Wales around 2007 when a VR took it upon himself to act outside his powers? Perhaps someone on here can remember.

The difference being there, that is was during live action and it hadn't been referenced to the VR. Since that incident, the Video Referee's Microphone is not switched on during normal play, and is only used when he is requested. But once he is requested, he is free to chirp in on things the referee may not have seen.

Again, straight from the mouth of Mr Cummings.

Well it's a good job they don't all take it particually seriously then isn't it. If they were rewinding every try to the previous play the ball I'm pretty sure you can find at least one reason to disallow every single try. Not least the fact it probably wasn't played correctly.

They won't go back and watch the whole thing "just for the sake of it". But if they think they've seen something, or while watching a replay of something requested, they notice something else, then they are free to rule on it.

Must've missed it then. What can I say. Obviously our brown envelope reached him just in time.

Placed onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if:

(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball.
(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.
(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.
(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.
(e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team


[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/14_offside[/url

Not 100% sure, but I don't think it counts as an offside. If he's in front of the ball when played, isn't it something else? "Inactive" or some other stupid term?

Purely going on when Brent Webb was penalised for it at Odsal and had a try chalked off. He went behind the man in possession, but was still penalised.

I'm sure it's a different rule to offside and is essentially that you're not allowed to get involved until the ball is played again.

Ritz will be able to clarify this one for us I think.

Not sure about "Inactive" but if he was Offside then by the laws of the game he was definitely onside by the time he touched the ball.

Yeah but as I say, go back to the try that got chalked off at Odsal a year or two ago, when Webb was penalised for the same thing after he got involved. By that rule you've quoted, he would have been deemed onside again and therefore the try would have been given. So there must be something more to it than simply classed as offside.

Maybe the ref got the Webb decision wrong?

Got it.

From Section 11:



So attacking player in front of the PTB is classed as "out of play".

Then from same section you linked to:




They are classed as "out of play" and not "offside" and not played back in by the lines you've quoted. They are "out of play" until the next PTB.

Nope Mr Alibert was correct.

It's not very clear where he would be classed as "out of play" but if the same rules apply to the attacking team then this would bring him back into play


[i(h) having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost[/i


It's not very clear either way imo

I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear.

I don't recall the incident with Buderus (and have no intention of going back and watching it). But if it's the same as the Brent Webb one from Odsal, then he was "out of play" and therefore not eligible to be involved until the next PTB (which is when the advantage has gone). It's right there in Black and White.

I was just struggling to see where he was officially classed as "out of play" and where it says he cannot join in until the next ptb.

I admit I have not read the entire rule book but could not find these points.

I agree it doesn't actually say that. It explains when a defender comes back into play, but not the attacking player (the bit you quoted is referring to the defender).

For that, I can only judge on what happened with the Webb incident, where they clearly stated on commentary that he's not eligible to be involved again until the next PTB (I only remember this clearly because when I was at the game without the benefit of commentary, I was completely bemused as to why the try was disallowed).

The rules don't seem to clarify that properly though, you're right.